babbling blue

I don’t go to see movies very often (still haven’t see “Brokeback”), but I went to see two this weekend. I enjoyed them both! Here are my opinions on each.

Thank You for Smoking
I saw this one first, on Saturday afternoon. It was funny. I think it was the type of movie with a lot of subtle humor in addition to the obvious stuff. I’d probably have to watch again to see if I missed anything. The story involves a lobbyist and spin doctor for the tobacco industry. While you might be inclined to think that it’s just a long anti-smoking propaganda film from the previews or the title, you’d be wrong. It’s a satirical look at lobbying and spin in general, with a personal touch. The main character, Nick Naylor, deals with his 12-year-old son, his ex wife, his back-stabbing boss, a U.S. senator on the warpath and a sexy newspaper reporter. Lots of hijinks. I highly recommend it.

V for Vendetta
I saw this movie Sunday at an IMAX theater. I have to say, for big budget action films that’s really the way to go. Big and loud, as they’re meant to be seen. The movie itself was quite good. Set in the not-so-distant future, it shows us life in England after the United States has all but collapsed. England is now a totalitarian society, controlled by a High Chancellor and a small cadre of powerful Party members. People live in fear–of the secret police as much as terrorists or criminals. The depiction is reminiscent of 1984. The protagonists are a masked avenger named only V, and Evey, a young woman who gets thrust into the revolution by being at the wrong place at the wrong time. . . twice. Together they change the world. Or at least England.

I accused Crash of beating the audience over the head with its message, and the same could probably be said of this movie. But there’s a difference. With Crash the message is something most people already know, or will at least claim to. The message I took from V is what can happen if people allow fear to rule them. What it could be like in the future if society is cowed by threats and willingly sacrifices its freedoms in exchange for some perception of security. It says that if people don’t take advantage of the legal means available to them now to save their freedom, much more drastic and violent measures would be needed in the future to reclaim it. I agree with that, but it’s not an opinion that’s held by enough people. And that is the fundamental difference between V for Vendetta and Crash. With Crash, people argue about whether the movie was good or not, and whether it deserved to win an Oscar. With V, people will argue about and discuss the message. It’s something people need to talk more about.

This post is already longer than I intended, so I’ll stop here. But I may talk more about V in a future post.

Today Samuel Alito was confirmed as the 110th Supreme Court justice. This was expected, but it’s not good.

The vote was 58-42. The following 4 senators from the Democratic party voted for Alito:

• Robert Byrd of West Virginia
• Tim Johnson of South Dakota
• Ben Nelson of Nebraska
• Kent Conrad of North Dakota

I doubt any of their constituents are going to read my blog, but on the chance that they do, I encourage them to keep this betrayal in mind during the next election.

Why do I say betrayal? Because Alito is not a good thing for this country.

In the words of Robert W. Gordon, Chancellor Kent Professor of Law and Legal History at Yale:

But wherever there is running room – opened up by gaps in application, conflicts in precedents, ambiguities in statutes - Alito is an activist who works steadily to push the law well beyond conventional boundaries of precedent. There is nothing “restrained” about his opinions proposing to strike down one federal law banning machine guns for exceeding Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause (U.S. v. Rybar, 1996); to strike down another mandating employers to grant medical leave to parents of newborn children for exceeding Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment (Chittister, 2000); and to construe regulatory and civil rights laws so restrictively as to frustrate their purposes. He is for “limited government” and “federalism” when those principles point to less regulation of business and religious expression; but for authoritarian government when it acts in the causes of protecting national security or law enforcement and regulating morals. He is in short a judge with an agenda, and the agenda is not “conservative” but right-wing-Republican.

Emphasis mine. I suggest you read the whole thing. Alito has an agenda, and it’s not one that’s good for most Americans.

Unfortunately the Democratic party is weak and lacks cohesiveness right now. They weren’t able to pull together a filibuster to hold Alito at bay. So now the Supreme Court shifts farther to the right, and another supporter of Bush (and executive power in general) is on it. We could be in trouble.

This Saturday, I went to a fundraiser for (and featuring) Hillary Rodham Clinton at Crobar in Chicago. When we arrived, there were a couple dozen protesters across the street. They had banners and were chanting various things, such as “Out of Iraq NOW!” and something about Hillary being anti-women (huh?) and it was clear they were liberals. So the following is a response to them and their kind.

My fellow liberal Americans, I recently witnessed some of us taking part in an important part of the democratic process, a protest. I have no problem with protesting. It’s the American way, and a powerful way to speak out against those things we disagree with. I don’t even find fault with protesting those who are supposedly on the same side of the aisle as us. Just because someone brands themself a Democrat doesn’t mean they always do what they should to represent liberal interests; if our own people screw up they should be called on it.

However, I must confess to being a bit baffled on some of the points you guys were trying to make this past Saturday when protesting Hillary Clinton in Chicago. There were signs complaining about healthcare and you were chanting that Hillary is anti-women (which then changed to anti-human). I don’t know where those criticisms came from. Mrs. Clinton crusaded for healthcare reform when her husband was president. It’s not an easy issue to tackle. She’s made some small accomplishments in the Senate, but broad and meaningful reform is elusive. She’s only one Senator out of 100. I also don’t know what anti-women (or human) stances Hillary has taken. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?

What I really have a problem with are the demands that we (the U.S.) withdraw from Iraq immediately, and the criticism of anyone that refuses to join in those demands. That kind of thinking is short-sighted and irresponsible. A complete and immediate withdrawal from Iraq at this point isn’t in anyone’s best interest. While we should probably have never invaded Iraq in the first place, we can’t unring a bell. Right or wrong, good or bad, it’s been done. And we have to see it through. To do otherwise creates a massive risk of destabilizing the region much more than it is now.

We went in to a country and toppled its government. That isn’t something that can be fixed over night. Removing our presence prematurely could lead to a civil war, with many more people dying than there are now. It could allow Iran (a country which is probably more a threat to us after being included on the foolish “Axis of Evil” than it was before) to exert great influence on Iraq. Certainly the area could become more of a staging ground and safe haven for terrorists than it ever was under Saddam.

America owes it to the Iraqi people to ensure the government we leave behind can protect them. We owe it to our soldiers, over 2000 of whom gave their lives for this already, to finish what we started. What we need, and what Senator Clinton and others are calling for, is a plan to transition military control of the country to the Iraqi people and gradually shrink our own presence there.

Going to Iraq in the first place was probably the wrong thing to do. But the cliche “Two wrongs don’t make a right” that you probably heard from your parents as a child rings true in this case. We can’t right our initial wrong by doing another one.

So to all of you liberals who like to protest against and attack liberals: if you’re going to continue to do so, you should really have a legitimate point or two. I know I neither heard nor read any at your protest this past Saturday.

Sincerely,
Josh V

One things conservatives do particularly well (better than liberals, who do it also) is demonizing things that don’t fall into their narrow view of how the world should be. Either they smear an organization or idea so much that its name becomes a dirty word, or they just “re-brand” the concept for their own purposes. The re-branding is often highly inaccurate.

Let’s look at some examples.

ACLU
This is a favorite target among social conservatives in particular. They can’t say “ACLU” without sneering (or maybe even spitting). To them, it’s the enemy of the people. And they bash it so much that those who are inclined to listen–like many Fox (Faux) News viewers–think of it as a terrorist organization. Many of them probably don’t even know what “ACLU” stands for. It is, of course, the American Civil Liberties Union. According to their website:

The ACLU is our nation’s guardian of liberty. We work daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Our job is to conserve America’s original civic values – the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

That doesn’t sound so bad, does it? Of course you can’t go by a blurb on an organization’s own website. But I’m not; I know what they stand for and what they do. And while I don’t agree with every position they take or jump onto their every cause (you have to choose your battles), in general I think they work for the greater good. If “liberty” is going to become a dirty word, then we have some monuments to rename and some major historical documents to edit.

Pro Choice (Pro abortion)
When the appropriate term for something sounds too harmless to properly slander, the right will simply give it a new name more evocative of the evil they claim it represents. Take the abortion debate. “Pro Choice” doesn’t sound bad. So the right invented the totally inaccurate term “pro abortion” to describe that position. It implies Pro-Choicers are somehow in favor of abortions. That we go around looking for pregnant women and ask them “Pardon me miss. I see you’re with child. Have you considered aborting it?” The idea that we like or encourage abortions is insulting. Pro-Choicers believe exactly what the correct term implies: a woman has the right to choose what is best for her.

The concept of abortions is something I personally struggle with. I consider myself Pro Choice, but I don’t like the idea of abortions being done as some sort of substitute for other forms of birth control. It’s not something I think should be done lightly. It’s also not something I’d ever presume to tell a woman what she can or cannot do about it.

Estate Tax (Death Tax)
Another example of rebranding is with the estate tax, which conservatives have dubbed the “death tax”. In this case, the new name is largely a method to mislead those who don’t really understand the issue. No one thinks it’s fair to get taxed for passing away. Of course, if you’re dead, what do you care? You don’t own anything any more. But that’s beside the point, because the tax is levied against your heirs on their inheritance from you. It’s not levied against your corpse. It’s not a death tax.

What most people fail to realize is that the federal estate tax applies to only to about 2% of American families. That’s the richest 2%. The current law exempts $1.5 million per person or $3.0 million per couple and that amount is set to gradually increase to $3.5/$7.0 million by 2009. Oh, and money that goes to spouses or charitable organizations are also exempt. That means if you inherit $10,000 from Grandma when she passes on, the tax collector will not be knocking on your door. But if you’re Paris Hilton and mumsy leaves you a $500 million when she checks into that great luxury hotel in the sky, you have to pay up. Oh boo hoo, how unfair! How will you survive?!

The estate tax is not a death tax, and it doesn’t affect any but the richest people in America. And it produces important revenue that the government desperately needs. The idea that small businesses and family farms are destroyed by this is mostly a myth; they can be further protected by reforming the law instead of repealling it. But of course, no one wants to get taxed for dying.

Citing the inability of a SCOTUS justice to wear blue to work, Harriet Miers has withdrawn her name from consideration. Who knew she was such a slave to fashion?

So what happens now? Nothing good, surely. It’s nice to see that I wasn’t the only person with the little conspiracy theory I came up with right after the nomination.

A friend of mine said that Rove might have actually been behind this nomination, allowing someone to go forward who would get very little support, so that any opposition to the next nominee could be portrayed as obstructionism. And that next nominee will likely be a very far right ideologue, or as my friend said, Darth Vader.

Restless Mania

At least we know Darth Vader wouldn’t have a problem wearing a black robe every day.

Attorney: And that’s why it’s critical to our society that we protect the civil rights of those held in government custody. Thank you.
Justice Vader: I find your arguments quite disappointing, counselor. [makes squeezing gesture with thumb and index finger]
Attorney: [gasps] [chokes] [falls down dead]

It’s nice to see there is at least one conservative out there that actually thinks rather than regurgitating terms like “strict originalist” or “strict constructionist” that they don’t really understand. Even though our goals and philosophies are definitely not aligned, I have to respect the Conservative Princess for that.

Do you really want an strict Originalist? No. No conservative really wants that. What conservatives do know is that they have no idea what they want. They only believe that they want an Originalist because it means that Roe could get overturned, but newsflash! someone who spells an end for Roe in the Originalist sense, might take a strike or two at Federalism and the Commerce Clause every once in a great while.

While I don’t think Miers was a very qualified candidate, nor that she wasn’t a crony, I am more afraid of who is coming next than I was of her. Anyone who doesn’t fear Darth Vader is probably mentally deficient.

I’m willing to bet we’ve all heard variations of that phrase used many times. And I’m further willing to bet that most people who say it have no idea what torture is really like. I know I don’t. And I hope I never need to find out. But who knows?

With timing that was a result of prescience or coincidence, the episode of “Commander in Chief” last night dealt with torture. Specifically torture of a terror suspect by the U.S. government. This is a warm topic right now. It should really be hot, but people don’t seem to care as much as they should.

In the real world (as opposed to the fictional world on “Commander in Chief”) the Senate recently passed–overwhelmingly, though not unanimously–an amendment to the defense spending bill that outlaws torturing a prisoner in U.S. custody. And now our warm & fuzzy Vice President is coming out against it–the amendment, that is. That’s right, Dick Cheney wants us (via the CIA) to torture people.

So now Mr. Cheney is trying to persuade members of a House-Senate conference committee to adopt language that would not just nullify the McCain amendment but would formally adopt cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as a legal instrument of U.S. policy.

Washington Post Editorial

In the fictional world I mentioned, the Attorney General authorizes torturing a terror suspect to prevent an impending attack. She did this after the President said “I don’t want to hear that he was tortured” which the AG took to mean it was ok to torture the guy, but the Prez didn’t want to be told. This didn’t go well.

The AG’s position was that these terrorist scum (and I do believe terrorists are scum, don’t get me wrong) don’t deserve our protection.

I think President Mackenzie Allen’s response to this was spot on:

The rules are not there to protect them. They are to protect us. Other nations follow us. If we torture there is nothing to prevent other countries from doing the same, to our citizens.

The arguments against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (torture) are:

1. It is wrong/immoral. This is a nebulous, subjective argument. I’m not saying I don’t believe it, but it’s not the strongest point.
2. It is unreliable. This is a stronger argument as it can be supported with fact, not just feeling.
3. It sets a bad example. The point the fictional President made is a strong one as well. If we can torture, so can everyone else.

Just say no to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the government. That’s what bad guys do.

JUDGE MICHAEL MCCONNELL
U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, appointed by G.W. Bush, 50 years old
Has criticized Bush v. Gore and the Clinton impeachment, but also Roe v. Wade (he signed a statement in 1996 supporting a constitutional amendment banning abortion). Has plenty of things to make Democrats happy; you hope they can overcome that one big one!

New World Man presents: My favorite candidate for the Supreme Court
brought to you by Quizilla

Very interesting. W has chosen his nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on SCOTUS. He chose Harriet Miers. This process is going to be fun to watch. The headline on my homepage wasn’t something like “Bush taps woman for O’Connor replacement” or “Harriet Miers chosen as Supreme Court nominee”. Rather, it was “High Court Nominee Has Never Been a Judge”

The thing that excites me about Harriet is that this choice doesn’t seem to be popular among conservatives. That’s a good sign. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Most conservatives seemed to be hoping (and expecting) someone more like Scalia or Thomas (in other words, stalwart extreme right-wing nutjobs).

What they got is someone who isn’t a known quantity, but may be somewhat moderate. We don’t know because, as the headline above helpfully points out, she’s never been a judge. She hasn’t argued before the Supreme Court either. She has, however, contributed to the campaigns of both Republicans and Democrats (Al Gore, 1988). Right now, we have little to use to gauge her political philosophy on any major issues. That includes abortion.

I predict we’ll be seeing some characteristic right-wing hypocrisy during the confirmation. Conservatives that applauded John G. Roberts for not answering questions will insist that Miers respond to the same. And attack her if she doesn’t.

But what if she’s being set up to fail? Miers is seen as a strong Bush loyalist (one thing that worries me if she does get confirmed). It’s conceivable that she would agree to take one for the team. If she isn’t confirmed, the argument will be that she isn’t experienced enough; she may even draw comparisons to Michael Brown. Republicans will use the term “experienced” but they’ll mean “conservative”, of course. So let’s say she’s turned away, with the primary reason being lack of experience. That opens the door wide for Bush’s so-called second choice to be someone with a lot of experience and a rock-solid conservative history. Someone more like Scalia or Thomas. W could then simply say “You asked for experience, and that’s what I gave you.” It would be difficult for Democrats to fight off such a nominee in that situation.

At this point, that’s nothing more than a conspiracy theory in my head. But it’s something to think about. And it’s completely within the abilities of Karl “Lucifer” Rove to conceive and orchestrate.

In my humble opinion, unless we learn something more drastically wrong with her, we should grudgingly confirm Harriet Miers to the court. Because we really could do much worse.

Of course anyone vaguely interested in politics seems to be blogging about W’s Supreme Court (SCOTUS) nominee, so I guess I should do the same.

After a very convincing fake-out, giving no one but those secretly clued-in adequate time to prepare, George W Bush appointed another straight, white, conservative, Christian male. There is nothing particularly wrong with that combination, it’s just that they already make up a good portion of SCOTUS. Why another one? Well. . . we knew it would be someone conservative and straight, and Christian was a fair bet too. But the white and male parts were certainly not guaranteed. In fact, up until a few hours before the televised announcement, everyone seemed to think it would be a woman. A moderate conservative woman, at that.

But no, it’s a white guy. And he’s only 50, which means he could realistically be on the Court for 3 decades or more. Rehnquist is 87, and he’s still going . . . sort of.

Everyone seems to think this guy, John Roberts, Jr., is going to be confirmed. And I’m inclined to agree. I don’t know yet if that’s good or bad. He has minimal experience as a judge on which to base an opinion of him. Most of his career was as an attorney. And an attorney argues the beliefs of his clients, not necessarily his own.

One of the few things we do know is that he is against abortion. When he was being confirmed for his seat on the Court of Appeals he was asked about his position. He stated that it was the established law of the land and that he would uphold it. But that was for a job in which he had to defer to the Supreme Court. In his new job, he’ll be on the Supreme Court and he can help to change the law of the land. The talking heads on CNN last night seem to think that a wholesale overturning of Roe v. Wade is unlikely, but that with Roberts on the Court abortion rights will probably be slowly eroded.

This is of course all just guessing at this point; no one really knows what will happen. But some people are definitely freaking out. There are a number of special interest groups opposed to Roberts as well. This guy gives a nice roundup of the arguments against him thus far.

Since confirmation at this point seems inevitable, before we liberals begin to panic, we should remember the history of Sandra Day O’Connor. When she was appointed she was also a staunch conservative. Some of her earlier opinions reflect that. In 1983 she sided with the conservatives (the minority) in favor of local abortion restrictions. In 1986 she voted to uphold a Georgia anti-sodomy law. In 1989 she sided with the right against minority set-asides. But then Sandra began to drift more towards the middle. In 1992 and 2000 she sided with the left in two abortion cases. In 2003 she voted in favor of U. of Mich’s affirmative action policy. Finally in 2003 she helped strike down Texas’ law banning homosexual sodomy (thanks Sandra D!).

Conservatives felt betrayed by her, but many people think she turned out to be a pretty damn good justice in the end. She considered each case on its own merits, and didn’t bow to political pressure or personal prejudices. We can only hope that something similar happens with the future Justice Roberts, who will be taking her place.

W’s choice (or rather his handlers’ choice. . . he’s not smart enough to have done this himself) was politically brilliant. There is almost nothing in Robert’s history that can be used against him in the confirmation process. He’s practically a blank slate. Yet he’s a stalwart conservative, so it seems to be a safe choice for the right.

All we can do at this point is wait and watch and hope for the best.

MoveOn.org: Save NPR and PBS

If you haven’t already done so, go sign the petition to tell Congress not to cut funding for PBS and NPR. I grew up on “Sesame Street” but the children of tomorrow may not have the chance to.